Novell contends that it may seek to use statements made or taken in the context of the
IBM litigation. Even if such statements were offered and introduced at this trial, foundation
could be laid for their admission without reference to the IBM case. Witness and counsel alike
could refer to 'another proceeding,' if there is any need to differentiate the circumstances under
which the statement was made from the present litigation. Novell has advanced no reason why
the jury would need to understand that the statement was generated in the IBM case. Lacking
any need for the evidence, Novell should be precluded from interjecting prejudicial references to
the IBM litigation before this jury....

Novell asserts that it does not intend to elicit testimony or introduce evidence concerning
the commentary on the IBM litigation; accordingly, the Court should so Order the parties to
direct their representatives and witnesses to refrain from any such reference. Novell nevertheless
implies that it intends to introduce news articles that would contradict that Order, on the asserted
basis that such articles also contain admissions by SCO executives. In light of the narrowed
issues for trial, no such articles or admissions would be relevant; accordingly, Novell's only
purpose in seeking their admission would be to improperly prejudice SCO. In the event that the
Court permits admission of such statements by SCO executives contained in news articles,
gratuitous information regarding the IBM litigation can and should be redacted therefrom.

Groklaw is hazardous, because all his statements are here, and of course most of them were made in the context of filing its litigation against IBM. The SEC filings are here on our SCO Financials page. The teleconferences are here on our Transcripts page. There's just no telling what a juror might stumble across. Like, say, in our Quote Database, where all the wild and now provably untrue statements McBride made about owning System V copyrights that SCO said it got under the 1995 APA are preserved for history. Oh, and all the statements about Novell and how it had no right to say it owned the copyrights. My, my. I agree. Groklaw is juror quicksand for SCO. If I were SCO I would be worried that the same thing will happen in court that happened in the court of public opinion. What I don't understand, unless this was intended as FUD lawsuit, is why the SCO legal team let the SCO executives say so much to the media in the first place.

And among the other many new filings, Novell says in its Opposition to SCO's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) [PDF] that SCO's motion is premature and so should be rejected and that's the nicest thing Novell says about it. For starters, the rule is for getting judgments on claims, not on portions of claims, which is what they say SCO is asking to have finally adjudicated. "Novell's rights and obligations vis-a-vis the IBM and Sequent licenses are intertwined with the question of whether those licenses are SVRX licenses under the Agreements. Because SCO does not even argue that the Court 'entirely' disposed of Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief on summary judgment, the portion of the claim for which SCO seeks final judgment is unripe for appeal." Ditto the Second Claim. And as for the effect on the IBM litigation, it's going to be tried too soon for SCO to make it through an appeal first, Novell points out.